Re: Aha!
That, sir, is an insult to the ZX Spectrum. As far as I know, it had eight colours instead of the four they like to use (white, black, eye-strain grey and the sort of blue that suicidal teenagers paint their entire rooms with)
Microsoft's making over the Windows Console, the tool that throws up a command line interface and which has hung around in Windows long after DOS was sent to the attic and told not to show itself in polite company. The company's revealed that in Windows 10 build 16257 the Console will get new … colours. Yup, that's all. …
I would like to observe that this has nothing to do with cmd.exe, except in so far that cmd.exe is a console Windows program, and will therefore pop up a console when being executed (and when it isn't invoked from a parent which already has a console).
It has also nothing to do with DOS: cmd.exe is perfectly normal Windows application, just one which happens to request a console. (I should note that automatically getting the console window is the *only* difference between console and non-console .EXE's in Windows: a console application can still create additional "normal" windows, and basically do whatever a non-console .EXE can do.)
Doesn't anybody use JP Software's Take Command anymore?
Hang on a moment, M$ on a number of occasions have told us that their new (insert version here) OS, was built from the ground up and is the most secure operating system in the world.
Someone should explain to Microturd what "built from the ground up" means
They should also explain to them that you can't claim "most secure" to untested code that has not yet stood the test of time
Mine is the coat with the by-default disabled firewall in the pocket
Green on black on a nice Falco glass TTY was the best. Some even had three RS-232 ports so you could switch between sessions on three different System V servers or stream S-records through to your Pentica Mime 600 in-circuit emulator with a suitable escape sequence. Once I'd discovered Emacs I was in heaven! :-)
I'll hobble over to the coat rack ...
Microsoft wants to get rid of CMD. As the first step in that direction they are changing the CMD color scheme to match its successor powershell.
Then end of cmd and the reign of powershell just takes another forced update.
Are you ready?
Or will you "bash" the whole idea?
"Yup, that's all. Colours. No new syntax. Nothing cloudy. Just colours."
But ... but ... but ... how about a proper set of ledgible fixed pitch fonts, how about the ability to actually re-size the terminal window like any sane terminal? how about a sane copy/paste mechanism?
Basically, make the bloody thing like PuTTY please.
This reminds me of the kerfuffle back in the late 1980s, when half-height floppy drives first came out. Suddenly, portables (think laptops that weighed over a stone) could have two floppy drives! At the same time!
Still, some fretted. Would there be any problems switching from a full-height drive to a half-height? This was not helped at all when some companies brazenly started advertising that their software worked on systems with the half-height drives. This, of course, got people worried that their competitor's software wouldn't, and it took a while before people realized that a floppy drive was a floppy drive, regardless of how high it was.
So, MS is changing the colour? Well, I've not started a CMD console in years; everything is done within JPSoft's excellent TCC (and freeware TCC/LE) replacements. If an instance of cmd.exe must be run, the tabbed cmder console is much better...
Did the Insider chumps who 'do testing' and 'give feedback' to Microsoft ever consider the possibility that some of us might be colour blind?
You think it's cute, funny or trendy to willy-nilly do a 'makeover' of CMD.EXE without giving thought to greater ramifications?
Sheer idiocy from Microsoft these days. Case in point: Skype.
"Did the Insider chumps who 'do testing' and 'give feedback' to Microsoft ever consider the possibility that some of us might be colour blind?"
I do not believe that MS act on feedback from Insiders so I don't think it is fair to blame them.
Actually, I'm not sure what motivates most of what MS do these days. If they really wanted to improve the appearance of Windows on modern monitors, perhaps they could finish implementing High DPI support in all the applets that ship with a vanilla installation. (Until fairly recently, nearly all the MMC snap-ins for the "old" Control Panel were blurry shit at >125% mag. They've address the most commonly used ones in recent builds but not all. Given how easy it is to add the relevant manifest entry, and given how that's all you need to do if you learned your Windows programming from Mr Petzold, this is frankly embarrassing.)
If you have Cygwin installed then you can just use Bash commands directly from the Windows command shell. The Windows shell isn't really worth a damn, its usable for trivial things, but you can't write worthwhile scripts in it and anything you do is incompatible with the rest of the world so installing Cygwin gives you a degree of flexibility that outstrips anything MSFT has to offer, including their Linux on Windows support.
(Cygwin?? A lot of professional development toolsets are Linux based, they either use a third party language (Eclipse / Java) or Cygwin. Applications developers won't necessarily see this but if you work with embedded products or hardware you're essentially only using Windows because IT/Corporate policy demands it.)
You guys 'n gals realise that it has been possible to change all the colors, font and size of the console window since XP at least (and possibly '98)? Just right click on windows title and select the the Properties dropdown - color away (avoid black-on-black etc. . . .).
All MS has added is a few newer tweaks, none of which are that earthshaking, and made a whole new fuss about it, as though they'd given us all something new.
And yes, behavior IS different between PowerShell and Command Shell.
Mac
I think this article is about a different set of colours. (Otherwise Microsoft, who presumable are perfectly aware of the feature you refer to, wouldn't be making an announcement about it.) I think this article is talking about the colours used by arbitrary console programs (is this the old VGA palette?) rather than the ones used by CMD.EXE.
Xenix was not just a shell, it was a true UNIX™ port. Obviously it required a much heftier machine than DOS, but it was itself the most-widely-used UNIX for a while.
Note that in MS DOS 2.0, Microsoft introduced a lot of UNIX compatibility features (directories, file descriptors, a primitive form of redirection). At the time MS saw Xenix as the long-term successor of DOS.
Later they changed that to OS/2, and ultimately they decided to go for it alone with Windows NT.
Xenix was actually licensed by Microsoft from AT&T in 1979. It was the exact same bog standard PDP11 Version 7 Unix that I had access to at UCB. Microsoft never actually coded anything[0] for Xenix, rather they sub-licensed the AT&T source code to third parties, who did the actual coding and porting.
For example, it was SCO who ported it to the IBM PC's 8086/8088 architecture in roughly 1983. Yes, the very same machine that shipped with MS-DOS. Most of us yawned[1] ... although looking back, it was a pretty good hack by SCO![2] Hindsight's 20/20 ...
The name Xenix came about because Ma Bell couldn't (or didn't want to) let them use the UNIX name. The claim for jealousy guarding the trademarked UNIX name was because MaBell was regulated and wasn't allowed to get into the retail trade, although that always rang a trifle hollow to me.
Before SCO's port was released, there was a TRS-68000 version, a Zilog Z8001 port, and an Altos 8086 version (not necessarily in that order, my mind is concatenating time). There were several others. Microsoft didn't write any of them, rather the third-party companies in question did the coding.
A version of SCO Xenix is available for the download here: ftp://www.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Distributions/Other/Xenix/ ... Don't blame me for the www in that URL.
[0] Unless you consider adding Redmond copyright crap to a few header files "coding".
[1] Those of us working on BSD at the time looked on Xenix as BSD's somewhat insane & slightly neurotic little brother.
[2] Last time I posted something along these lines, I asked if anyone could remember who ported Xenix to Apple's Lisa. Turns out it was SCO ... I have a copy, my Lisa looks a lot happier running a un*x than the OS she came with. (Don't worry, all you purists, I have the stock software for her, too.)
Thanks for the clues-- I knew it was a MS thing (or a SCO thing?) and it made me guess they are addicted to the letter X (Xbox, DirectX, ActiveX, etc). Bender says he prefers the term extortion because the X makes it sound cool. But essentially everything I 'knew' about Xenix I learned from a strange bit of early-WWW fiction, which now seems oddly appropriate...
I had a nice, relaxing Christmas. I drank beer. I ate sleeping pills. I played with my crayons.
I used the 'old' colors...the new colors are part of the plot against me.
I made Christmas gifts for my friends, with scissors and paper, like we used to do at the 'Home,' only with real scissors, not like those crummy plastic ones Mrs. Prudence made us use. I sent all my friends some of those cut-out dolls that you open up and there's ten or twelve of them in a row that you can string around your Christmas tree.
They didn't have heads. Mrs. Prudence always threw my cut-out dolls away if they didn't have heads and made me take extra medicine...and punished me. But now I'm not in the 'Home' anymore, and I can make them without heads, or arms, or legs, or anyway that I want.
Maybe by 2021 they'll give the option to put the scroll bar on the right side OR the left side, or have no scrollbar at all, or resize to something other than 80 columns, or hide the menubar, or hit F11 to go to utter full-screen mode and back-- like I can now, without even a lien on my soul.
It's easy to change the size of the Command Prompt screen. Go into Properties and change the font (size).
I also use TCC/LE. In part, I like it for the pdir command:
pdir g:\2017 /s /(dy-m-d zm fpn) >> j:\2017.txt
that sort of thing, in batch files, to have up-to-date listings, in a format of my choice, of offline files.
At best, they're making one thing better, while making a whole bunch of other things slightly worse. Typical. For example, I like the colour bright yellow. An earlier poster liked it against blue, I like it against deep red / maroon. That's what I use when editing text files with ConTEXT 0.98.3 (the later version would occasionally lose its mind, for me). In the article, the line with bright yellow against all backgrounds looks washed out in comparison to the Old Way.
With old monochrome monitors, I think the determinative factor in usability may have been the quality of the equipment rather than the chosen colour. I had a Televideo green monitor, rock-solid, never suffered eyestrain. Made me feel like a real programmer (psssst, don't look at the CODE!). Amber screens (whether black text on amber or amber text on black) tended to give the impression of fleetingness, like an inaudible buzz. Yet you could use the same colours now on an LED without that impression. Even worse were the "paper white" screens I encountered. To get the paper white colour required more complex technology, but that didn't remove the pressure of meeting a price point, so they tended to use a cheaper version of that technology. Today, we're all accustomed to paper white, few complain about it except in darkened rooms. It was the application of technology that stank, not the concept.